Musharraf verdict.

THE verdict in the treason case against retired Gen Pervez Musharraf marks a seismic shift in Pakistan's history. It was thus far inconceivable that any military dictator this country has ever known would be convicted of high treason, as defined in Article 6 of the same Constitution that he had abrogated or held in abeyance.

After a trial that lasted nearly six years, the special court set up to hear the case has unanimously found the former army chief guilty of the offence; Mr Musharraf had suspended the Constitution on Nov 3, 2007, when he imposed emergency in the country.

In a decision announced on Tuesday, the bench awarded him the death penalty, with one judge dissenting. The reaction, as expected with an issue of such consequence and given the implications pertaining to institutional equilibrium, has ranged from exultation to outrage.

However, whether one agrees or not with a verdict that has - at the very least - huge symbolic significance for all concerned, some of the more excessive sentiments on display are troubling. After all, the bench that arrived at the decision was no inconsequential forum. It comprised three superior court judges who are part of the same judiciary often lauded for its resurgent independence, such as when it disqualified a sitting prime minister not too long ago.

Ironically, this sense of autonomy is often seen as having taken root in the very circumstances that led to Mr Musharraf imposing the emergency in 2007 - specifically, the legal challenges to his re-election as president that were being heard by the Supreme Court then.

Some might see this as the wheel having come full circle...